View Single Post
Old 11-10-2009, 01:50 PM   #13
AndrewD
Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodjem View Post
By what year do you treat the Australian Open as a fully fledged, major slam tournament, that is equal to Wimbledon or the US Open or the French Open.

Sgt. John's Feb 2009 list suggests that it did not have this status until 1990.
Here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...05#post3098705

(Indeed, he does award the FO this same status until 1978.)
Accepting that suggestion is a sign of your gullibility and stupidity.

You can suggest that from 75 to 82 the Australian Open didn't attract players commensurate with what we perceive to be the status of a major. However, from 83 (when Wilander, McEnroe and Lendl played) onwards the only way you can denigrate it is if you're either riddled with bias or are clinically stupid.

Prior to 75, you can't sensibly suggest that the Australian wasn't an equal partner. The biggest problem it faced, in attracting international players, was the distance. HOWEVER, given that Australian players dominated international tennis from the 50's through to the early 70's it wasn't important to attract anyone other than locals.

End of the day, this is a tired discussion. The sad thing is that you guys dont seem to have the capacity or desire to logically examine the history. You base your entire argument on one 'fact' and run with it - the hallmark of the uniformed.

Do yourselves a favour and look at the players McEnroe beat to win Wimbledon in 83, then look at the players Connors beat to win the US Open in 83 and then look at the players Wilander beat to win the Australian that same year. If you come away thinking that Wilander had the easiest road to the final, you just shouldn't be allowed to discuss the game in public.
AndrewD is offline   Reply With Quote